Is he one of the main figures of hinduism, whether a God or just a prophet? And was there an actual man named Krishna or was he a character of myth? Also I heard that Krishna, like Buddha and Jesus, resisted worldly pleasures for higher state of exsistance. Is this true?
Silverbackman , Sep 6, Joined: Aug 3, Messages: Likes Received: 0. I'm sure there will be more answers to this from those that have more knowledge than I, but I read that "the Bhagavad Gita is found in the sixth of eighteen books that constitute India's great epic poem, the Mahabharata The authorship of the Mahbharata, including the Gita portion, is traditionally assigned to the illumined sage Vyasa, whose date is not known.
Joined: Aug 24, Messages: Likes Received: 0. Like Pohaikawahine said, usually sage Vyasa is given credit for writing down the Gita. This sermon was seen by the bard, Sanjaya by divine vision , and narrated to the blind king Dritarashtra. The whole event was known to Sage Vyasa, who narrated it to Lord Ganesha, who wrote down the Gita along with the whole epic of Mahabharata. Many people take this to be the literal truth. Some argue that the Gita was a much later addition to the Mahabharata epic.
Krishna and Rama are the main figures in Vaishnavite Hinduism. According to Vaishnavism, Krishna was never a sage, a prophet, a messenger or a son of God. The ignorant, however, did not realize his divinity. One of the upanishads Chhandogya does speak of Krishna, son of Devaki, in passing, but not as God-incarnate. Both are ignorant; there is neither slayer nor slain. You were never born; you will never die. You have never changed; you can never change. Unborn, eternal, immutable, immemorial, you do not die when the body dies.
Arjuna is a member of the warrior class; the battle is the very reason of his existence within this particular order now. The third reason Krishna gives is that inaction is impossible. Withdrawing from battle is in itself a conscious decision; not choosing is still a choice. This is, in a way, a criticism of some world-views, such as asceticism, which claim that leaving everything behind is inaction. Withdrawing from society is always a deliberate act. Another reason given by Krishna is that the source of evil is not in actions, but in passion and desires, the intentions behind the actions.
This brings the dialogue to the last reason. The fifth and last reason is that there are ways to act where we can do what we have to do without getting bad karma. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna explains three ways to act without getting bad karma. The first way is Jnana yoga the way of knowledge. This idea is based on the Upanishads and holds that life and death are not real.
Selfhood is nothing but an illusion. All we see are manifestations of the one. Once we realize that the one is behind all things, we can escape the bad karma from acting. Seeing all life as my manifestation, they are never separated from me. This in an idea developed in great detail in Hinduism and holds that our actions can be dedicated to Krishna by surrendering our will to him, and he will take upon himself any bad karma.
The idea behind Karma yoga is acting without attachment; in other words, to act without being so concerned about the outcome of our actions. The Third Author is the editor and the final arbiter of the document. He wrote the entire Adhyayas 7, 9—12, 16 plus interpolated in the Adhyayas the two others wrote. Note that while Khair has a tripartite division of the Bhagavad Gita, his analysis is more subtle than that of Deussen as he argues that the third author mixed up the different parts which disguises the divisions.
Of course, Kosambi puts the final rendition of the Gita much later to the Gupta period rather than the highpoint of the Buddhist period as Khair does. The ideas common to Kosambi and Khair are that a there are multiple authors and b that the text evolves over time as it responds to different circumstances prevailing as per the struggle between Buddhism and Brahmanism while Khair alone contributes the idea that c the Third Author adds to and edits the text to give it a sort of unity.
This makes sense if we see that the First Author is not joining a battle against Buddhism but expounding the Upanshadic doctrine in a concise way. It is like a catechism for young students. Once we are beyond 2. Hence, we begin with a mention of Sankhya in 2. He is also a didactic writer expositing what has to be learnt. His style is dispassionate. He uses words such as jnanin, munih, yatih, yogin but sparsely. This is also a teaching text, meant for select audiences.
The second or third century BCE which Khair gives as the likely date is the high point of the spread of Buddhism with Ashoka having given royal patronage to Buddhism. The champions of Brahmanism had to fight back.
The Gita with a popularised section moulded along with the earlier parts was to be the weapon.
0コメント